Hi all,
As we start to clean and cleanse our association and look to change the constitution that all members to have power to vote and hold our board and executive team accountable for their action. One issue that I do not favour and should be removed at all cost, is SPONSORSHIP.
We are a not-for-profit association, why on earth are CPA spending enormous amount on sponsorship.

Money should be spend on increasing the credibility of members and greater availability of CPD and enhancing the CPA education program to ensure that it remain high class.

I am up to remove all sponsorship - that is CPA Australia would no more be allowed to sponsor in the future. What are our opinions on this matter?

(1) to attract people to be CPAs - which i would suggest should be targeted at students studying commerce mainly;
(2) to attract business to hire CPAs - by demonstrating them to be the best at what they do.

I don't know that there's a need to market ourselves to the broader community, although it's arguably part of (2). Depends where you draw the line with (2) - how many people watching the tennis or basketball this year were in need of an accountant but didn't know where to look. Probably very few.

I thinked a smart, targeted campaign for (1) and (2) is warranted; i don't see a need for blanket sponsorship of the basketball or tennis.

(3) to attract businesses to engage members in public practice (think sponsorship at industry body events like Aus Medical Association). Need to promote the excellence, expertise and trustworthiness of these members.

Tennis actually has a very big global reach - the last Aus Open men's final had the biggest audience of a sporting event in history (or something like that , I read it at the time). It's not just about reaching accountants, but reaching people who need them, and parents and teachers who influence a child's career thinking. Exposure to the right markets with the right message is a good thing worth paying for. The payoff is quite intangible, harder to prove....that's why marketing budgets are often the first to go when a company is making cutbacks.

In my humble experience, I've seen that small business people in Victoria have received the message to seek out a CPA for their tax and accounting needs. On the other hand, in Tasmania the majority of my clientele wouldn't know nor care what sort of tax agent or accountant they get - so long as the professional is recommended by a friend.
Hence, the marketing campaign in Victoria which made CPAs desirable for all small businesses needs to be resurrected. All of us will benefit (that is public practitioners and employers of the future).

Tennis actually has a very big global reach - the last Aus Open men's final had the biggest audience of a sporting event in history (or something like that , I read it at the time). It's not just about reaching accountants, but reaching people who need them, and parents and teachers who influence a child's career thinking. Exposure to the right markets with the right message is a good thing worth paying for. The payoff is quite intangible, harder to prove....that's why marketing budgets are often the first to go when a company is making cutbacks.

CPA Australia said in the 16 March info that the purpose of the Aus Open sponsorship was to reach new members in Asia particularly China. Considering the recent revelations of free skilled visa assessment with membership I think it's probably the wrong focus. I think we are all hard pressed to find promotions of any significance that focus on promoting CPAs rather than recruitment drives for the organisation.

Just found out from an email, CPA is still sponsoring the 2018 Australian Open.
Probably too late to pull out as most likely there would have been a multi-year
contracted signed committing the organisation. As part of the review of all sponsorships
this information needs to be revealed. Very interested in the sections that allow us
to withdraw without penalties.

This will be a question for the new board to answer to us members. I don't want my membership fees to be used for sponsorship rather I prefer more CPD at reasonable price. So together we can influence CPA Australia direction if we voice out stronger rather than let them take it in whatever direction they want. We have learn that being inactive costs us members enormous.

This will be a question for the new board to answer to us members. I don't want my membership fees to be used for sponsorship rather I prefer more CPD at reasonable price. ...
....
We have learn that being inactive costs us members enormous.

Your last sentence is spot on.

But cheap CPD and zero external branding and marketing spending is not going to attract new members for the future. I am not saying the current model is the right sponsorship model for CPA Australia, but going forward we are going to have to ensure trust in the brand with potential new members after the debacle of recent events, and that is going to require spending on external-facing messaging of some kind (although I note that last year's men's final was , IIRC, the most watched sporting event of all time...there are worse places to advertise it would seem).

The board and management team, have not made an appropriate case to the members to support their belief that their marketing strategy was actually a good model. Evey time the members tried to ask at the AGM, in a civil and so called appropriate manner, about the NBL sponsorship or the Australia Open sponsorship, & anything else, the answers were not justified or supported with any costings or research. The AGM is supposed to be the appropriate avenue for the CPA Australia Board to present a case to convince the members of the appropriateness of their strategies when questioned. The problem is that the board had a belief that they were better then the members and therefore their decisions could not be questioned by the members nor convinced that other alternative strategies may be appropriate. Even when question about the information of the financial accounts, the board provided a face that everything was ok, when it was clearly not.

The whole marketing strategy of CPA Australia is not based upon improving the status of a CPA with the community but really based upon marketing a strategy of an education business in order to increase members and increase revenue and profits to those small individuals in power. This whole strategy would be good for a company listed on the stock exchange or a company with shareholders who look at the bottom line return. Again there is a need for the board to tell the members how much is being spent on the Australia Open. The board don't want to tell the members, because they know, when the members find out about the cost, and the details of the benefits that is provided with the sponsorship, that it will create huge outrage. So they believe it is in the best interest of the members to not disclose the costs, but just advise the members that it good for CPA and great advertising. The board of CPA have never really explained how they believe the NBL and the Australia Open sponsorship is in the best of the membership as a whole. The advertising will show a name called CPA Australia, but CPA Australia is supposed to be an accounting organisation. On the other hand, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, spends a fraction of what CPA Australia spends on advertising, and even NTAA and the IPA. The NTAA targets it market and sticks to marketing its education to the members and members of the public interested in the areas that they service. Yet the board of CPA strategy was, we have millions and millions of members funds available to be spent, so why not think like Telstra or NAB or even CBA and spend up big. Even Jo Aston from AFR saw the problem with the marketing strategy many many years ago, but the CPA Australia board did not have anyone to really question their plan or direction.

Alex Malley made himself the face of a business, that being the CPA Australia education business, but Alex Malley really had no great credibility except for a so called book, which upon review, proved to be made up of alot of conflicting ideas and concepts. Alex Malley was no leader in an industry, nor a long standing business entrepreneur with much practical experience, nor was he in the same standing of someone like Richard Branson or Warren Buffett. Therefore he was always going to struggle to establish any type of credibility with the members and the community at large. In order to try and build credibility the board aimed to use it TV show to build credibility by getting his face on TV and out in the public, but Alex Malley venture really again only aimed to improve Alex Malley. Even when the TV program was advised by current President Jim Dickson to be aimed at building interest with young members, old members, and non-members. This seemed to be totally different to positions put previously by past presidents advised the members. One indicated that the TV show was aimed at the young members, and another advised it was aimed at both young and old members. Now why would accountants be interested in wasting million and millions of members funds, to watch a program with no relevance to the accounting profession, nor any benefit to promoting or improving the standing with the general community about the status of CPA. It only reinforces the view, that the board did not have a really solid position about their advertising strategy. It would appear that their strategy was made on the run, funded with members money.

The board spent alot of money, based upon a strategy of one individual, which was always going to fail, if Alex Malley left or was terminated. This has now proven to be the case.

Now this employment contract of Alex Malley is very important, because it will show the details and probably answer alot of questions relating to Alex Malley's termination package. The board told the members that Alex Malley has signed over the rights to his book and rights to his image associated with the Naked CEO etc ventures, but no member really knows how much money was generated from the so called book, nor what the cost of this whole venture was or the compensation included in Alex's contract was. The contract is very important. Again young members of CPA, you need to read the documents, read the contracts to understand what is taking place. Most individuals do not read the legal documents, because of the manner in which it is drafted and the length of the documents. It's the devil in the detail. I would guess that the contract which current CPA Australia President Jim Dickson has advised was complied with, was one which probably should have never been entered into, because it enabled Alex Malley to walk away with so much compensation and so much remuneration every year and so much so called KPI's.

Again there are a lot of questions relating to the marketing strategy but the board never really wanted to answer. There are probably better ways to be build the status of CPA within the community and the future young members. How about engaging the retired members, not the retired members only in for the money, but those who you visit the Universities and explain to the students about the accounting profession, the opportunities out there and what they need to do and can do in association with CPA Australia and member based discussion groups?

If the board of CPA Australia over the last 10 years since Alex Malley, had done such a super job, then why continually increase membership fees every year, why such little attendance at the AGM and so many other issues, previously raised by other members. Graeme Wade told the Senate Committee of the poor attendance by the members at the AGM, being on average about 50 year year, which has been held in Melbourne. So why is the question that there is such poor attendance? Why didn't the board take the opportunity to use the AGM as a marketing tool with both young members and member that couldn't attend, but wanted too? Well, one could only guess, that the fewer the actual members that could attend an AGM, then the fewer individuals, that the board had to justify how they spent the members funds.

The marketing strategy is wrong, wrong wrong, and needs to change from NBL and Australian Open sponsorship. The board has never justified how the marketing on the NBL or the Australian Open sponsorship actually benefited the members, except to argue that it did work and got the organisation out there. That sounds good in the theory, but where is the proof to back up the argument? Probably very little.

This is why the marketing needs to change with the removal of NBL and Australian Open sponsorship.

Even the marketing via the so called "In the black" magazine is so so outdated. If CPA Australia wants to save money, instead of increasing members fees, which is the easiest option every year, how about giving the members the option on the annual renewal form as to whether they want the "In the black" magazine at all, or whether they would rather get the magazine via the internet, or maybe reduce the wasted paper, the expensive mailing costs, which are increasing every year and use the resources else where within CPA Australia for better education services to members, better services to younger members etc. It does appear that the management team, Adam Awty, Jeff Hughes and Peter Docherty appear to have very few practical ideas, because they have to ask members about how to improve the organisation. Maybe the members could get paid the hundreds of thousands of dollars like these guys get, in this market where accountants are having to be very competitive to get increases in remunerations.

Change will only come, when both young and old make their voice heard and act together for change, because the last 10 years of Alex Malley and his team and board have shown that little, except wasted opportunities and wasted members funds.

Last edited by JWheldon on Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is the old joke about the accountant and the marketing department. How can you tell when the chief accountant is getting soft? When he actually listens to marketing before saying “no.” Obviously Mr Malley is the marketing department, why didn't the board just say no to 99.5% of his B/S marketing ideas, although you never know they might have...... The membership increase is in line with population increase, the strategy failed, the marketing cost of generating any new members far exceeded the members subs generated. This is management accounting 101 surely.

Also there is the issue of the cover up with the PSC scheme lapsing as a result of the CPA Advice thought bubble. It's bad enough that the PSC scheme is lapsing, the benefits of which I would question anyway. It's the outright lies Mr Malley spun in the lead up to the disclosure.

Same crap with CPA Advice... "It was meeting expectations of the business plan". Yeah right...... burning though our money, $1m of which went to the chosen few at the top.